Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.
Does the honourable minister responsible have an opening statement?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson, it is my pleasure to introduce the 1996-97 Estimates for the Department of Urban Affairs. I have enjoyed my first year as the Minister of Urban Affairs and the opportunity to work with the mayor and the council of the City of Winnipeg on areas of mutual concern respecting our great capital city.
Manitoba Urban Affairs continues to perform the important role of facilitating and supporting intergovernmental relations between the city and the province. The department is responsible for the development and the maintenance of a legislative, financial and planning framework that supports Winnipeg's sustainable development and meets the needs of Winnipeg's citizens.
My department will undertake several initiatives in 1996-97 which support this mandate and an effective partnership with the City of Winnipeg. In keeping with the province's commitment to a financial partnership with Winnipeg, I am pleased to advise that this year's Urban Affairs operating grants to the city will total $83.48 million, an increase--I will repeat, an increase--of 3.2 percent over last year. This includes a $1.4-million increase in the unconditional video lottery terminal grant. This increased funding support to the city comes at a time when many provincial governments elsewhere have been freezing or cutting municipal support grants. Ontario, for example, has announced that it will be reducing its municipal support grants by 22 percent this year.
In the area of capital funding, the province will be providing $16 million to the City of Winnipeg in 1996-97 through the Urban Capital Project Allocation. The Urban Capital Project Allocation or UCPA is a cost-sharing partnership between the province and the city with each party contributing 50 percent toward eligible program expenditures.
This year's provincial funding will be used for projects such as the purchase of transit buses, bridge construction and community revitalization. As well, a portion of these funds are again being provided unconditionally to give the city greater flexibility to determine and implement its capital priorities. The project's funding will create jobs and economic spin-offs in addition to enabling necessary improvements to Winnipeg's infrastructure.
Over the years, one of Urban Affairs' most important roles has been to co-ordinate provincial participation in the intergovernmental agreements to improve urban living. On March 10, 1995, the $75-million Winnipeg Development Agreement or WDA was signed by the governments of Canada, Manitoba and Winnipeg. The objective of this agreement is to undertake programming which supports Winnipeg's long-term sustainable economic development through three components, community development and security, labour force development, and, third, strategic and sectorial investments. I am pleased to report that most programs under these sectors are now operational after completing extensive consultation with stakeholders.
* (1540)
In addition to providing overall provincial co-ordination for the WDA, Urban Affairs is implementing a number of programs including the north main economic development, urban safety, neighbourhood improvement, riverbank development and strategic initiatives. All of these programs are now in operation or will be shortly, and all have benefited from input from relevant interest groups. Funding of projects has now commenced under the programs being implemented by Urban Affairs, with the first project being the Downtown Watch safety patrol project under urban safety. Many more announcements under all Urban Affairs programs can be expected in the coming months.
It is important to note, too, that other provincial departments that are implementing WDA programs have also commenced project funding. Education and Training has just announced funding for an intensive study of Winnipeg's workplace and labour force sponsored by Winnipeg 2000 under the training and emerging growth sectors program. Under the transportation program, Highways and Transportation is funding the initial planning phase of a major initiative to support implementation of the WINNPORT multimodal cargo hub at the airport.
The government maintains its commitment to the revitalization of Winnipeg's older residential neighbourhoods through its partnership with the city under the Manitoba-Winnipeg community Revitalization Program. In 1996, work in the Fort Rouge neighbourhood will be wrapped up, and revitalization efforts in Elmwood, Glenwood and east Norwood neighbourhoods will continue.
My department also continues to work to foster a partnership between Winnipeg and surrounding municipalities. A key element of this effort is the consultative process to develop a Capital Region Strategy. A strategy developed jointly by the Round Table on Environment and Economy and the Capital Region Committee has been reviewed by the public and received strong support. The strategy will provide a framework for the planning and the development in the capital region well into the next century. The Capital Region Committee is the other major vehicle for forging a regional partnership and intergovernmental co-operation in the Winnipeg region. Urban Affairs provides secretarial support to this body.
The committee, which I co-chair with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and which includes all mayors and reeves in the region, continues to meet regularly. It provides a forum for the identification and the discussion of regional issues and the implementation of solutions. In 1996 and subsequent years, the committee's focus will be on implementation of the Capital Region Strategy.
In the area of environment, Urban Affairs chairs a bilateral committee of staff called the City/Provincial Environmental Planning Committee. The committee will be continuing its co-operative efforts to develop plans for implementing the Clean Environment Commission's recommendations relating to water quality in the Red and the Assiniboine rivers.
Urban Affairs also continues to have a significant role in the TransPlan 2010 process. Several years ago the province identified a need for the city of Winnipeg to have a comprehensive urban transportation plan, which resulted in my department committing $390,000 towards the preparation of the TransPlan 2010. This plan will provide a 15- to 20-year framework to guide both short- and long-term transportation decisions in Winnipeg. A steering committee of five citizens has been appointed to direct the development of TransPlan 2010. Departmental staff are participating on the advisory committee and the city-provincial management committee. The process to develop the new transportation plan has involved extensive public consultation and input. The plan is scheduled to receive provincial approval and to be adopted by the City Council in the very near future.
On the legislative front, my department carries on with its efforts to update and streamline The City of Winnipeg Act and to respond to specific requests for amendments for the City Council. I have introduced two bills during this session, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act and The Charleswood Bridge Facilitation Act.
In closing, I feel confident in saying that Urban Affairs will continue its proactive role to support the sustainable development of our capital city and improve the well-being of its residents. Mr. Chairperson, this concludes my opening remarks. I look forward to discussion on these Estimates.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), have an opening statement?
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): No, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic. I would remind all honourable members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1, is deferred until all other items on the Estimates of this department are passed, and at this time we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.
Is the minister prepared to introduce his staff present at this time to the committee?
Mr. Reimer: On my left, I will introduce the Deputy Minister, Bill Kinnear, and then Marianne Farag. On my right, we have John Gunn and Heather MacKnight.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The item before the committee is item 20.l. Administration (b) Executive Support.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I would have a process question to begin with. Last year in Estimates we agreed that we could discuss the department more or less in its entirety, and, as I am going through my questions, they do pretty much flow, but I do have some questions that may go over one line or another. So I am wondering if it is agreeable to the minister to do it all in one group.
Mr. Reimer: I have no problem with that, as long as the member realizes, sometimes we may have to scurry around for some of the answers, but I have no problem with an overall questioning of the department.
Ms. Barrett: I have a couple of questions relating, I guess you could call it “business arising from the last year's Estimates,” and I am wondering if I could ask the minister about status reports on a few of these things. I will understand if he has to get that information for me later. We discussed last year the issue of permanent voters' list, and I am wondering if the minister can explain or tell me what the status is of the permanent voters' list issue. You said last year that it was a study being undertaken.
Mr. Reimer: As mentioned by the member for Wellington, the question was asked last time, and it was in the discussion stage and the development stage at that time. It is still in progress. It has not been put off in a sense that it is not continuing. Part of the reason that it has been delayed, to a degree, is getting the priorities and the staffing in place and also that the federal government, Elections Canada, was undertaking an extensive examination of developing a permanent list for the federal elections.
Just recently, in fact, it was a just a couple of months ago in March that they released the findings of their research feasibility study and were using those results as a starting point as to the voters' list that she is referring to.
* (1550)
Ms. Barrett: There was going to be a committee established with representatives from a number of areas in the department and throughout the province, including UMM, MAST, the Department of Education, the provincial electoral office and the federal electoral commission. Has that committee been struck yet?
Mr. Reimer: To my knowledge, that committee has been struck, yes.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister provide me with a list of the members of that committee and any terms of references that have been established? I am more than happy to not have it read into the record, if you like, but just to give it to me, to table it.
Mr. Reimer: Correct me if I am wrong, what you are looking for is the individuals who have been appointed to that or the departments that have been appointed to that committee.
Ms. Barrett: My understanding is that in the last year's Estimates you itemized the organizations that were involved in the committee, and I would like to know, if possible, the names of the committee if the individuals have been named and the terms of reference. In order to save time, if the minister could just provide me with that; it does not have to be right now.
Mr. Reimer: I certainly can provide the list. I do have the various groups, the working group itself, the names of the working group. As to the individuals who have been assigned to that group, I do not have that, but I can give you the working group names. There are 10 of them. I can make that available for the member then.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that from the minister.
Another item that we discussed at a little bit of length last year was the suburban growth management study, to be more precise. There had been some delay in establishing that committee due to reticence on the part of the city, and I am wondering if there has been any movement in that regard or if that committee has begun its work or what the status is of that committee.
Mr. Reimer: I believe the member is aware that there were three parties involved with the proposal. There is the City of Winnipeg, there is the Urban Development Institute and the department. We have been informed that the other two parties have asked for a delay on the implementation on it, but it is an item that will be brought forth for discussion in meetings with the city to see whether there is any other direction that they are suggesting.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair.)
Ms. Barrett: So the minister is saying that the other two partners, which are the Urban Development Institute and the City of Winnipeg, have asked for a delay in the study. Well, has the study begun? Where is it stalled, if I can use that word? At what point is the suburban growth management study? Have the objectives been established? Has anybody been consulted for the study? There was some discussion about hiring an outside consultant. What has happened and at what point are we now?
Mr. Reimer: As indicated a few moments ago, there are three partners involved with the initiative, the City of Winnipeg, the Urban Development Institute and the province.
The terms of reference were established initially for the proceedings to begin; however, because of the staff or the commitment to it by the Urban Development Institute, they wrote a letter requesting that it be--and if the members like, I can read in the record the letter; it is a short letter.
As you know, the Urban Development Institute has recently gone through a restructuring process. The initial two UDI, or Urban Development Institute, representatives assigned to the growth management study are no longer with UDI. Although the positive impact of our industry needs to be recognized by the city, we find ourselves unable to devote adequate time to this issue due to our diminishing numbers. We accordingly ask that the city give our association time to meet and elect new representatives to deal with this issue. And then it says, yours truly, and it is signed.
Then the City of Winnipeg also wrote: Pursuant to our recent discussions, please be advised--this was directed to the Manitoba Urban Affairs, a letter received, to us. Pursuant to our recent discussions, please be advised that the Urban Development Institute has informed me that it does not wish to proceed with the above referred study at this time. A copy of the letter dated December 27, 1995, from Mr. David Borger , president of UDI, is enclosed for your information. I concur with Mr. Borger's position that this study be held in abeyance. In the interim I intend to recommend a review of the city's development agreement parameters with input from and with discussions with Urban Development Institute. It had originally been intended that this study would be conducted following the completion of the growth study, so the other two partners had indicated to us that they were wanting to hold on it, but as mentioned it becomes a discussion point now politically and this is where it will proceed from here.
Ms. Barrett: Has the minister or his department had any further communication with either the city or the Urban Development Institute since December of last year in regard to their timetable for being able to participate in the establishment of this study?
Mr. Reimer: There have been discussions on the administrative level, but nothing has been taken forward for recommendations at this time.
* (1600)
Ms. Barrett: I will not belabour this issue anymore because it is clear that it is not moving for obviously a number of reasons. But I do want to put on the record the fact that this is now the third year of Estimates that we have been discussing the issue of the suburban growth management study, and I think, as it will become clear in my line of questioning throughout the Estimates process, the whole issue of suburban growth is one that if it does not frame much of the work of the department, should frame much of the work of the department, it is a huge issue, one that has implications far beyond the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg. So I would ask the minister with all diligence to try and see what the problems are with the city and the Urban Development Institute and try and either make a decision that you are not going to do the study or move forward to actually beginning this process so that we have some sense that there is a recognition of the problems facing the City of Winnipeg, the capital region and the Province of Manitoba in this area.
Mr. Reimer: The member must recognize that in any type of relationship that there has to be a consensus and a co-operation to proceed. One partner cannot be the initiator and the instigator of all changes. The idea with this tripartite agreement or overview as instigated is to build upon a co-operative nature, and if there is not a willingness of the other two partners to participate or to be part of an aggressive program on this, one partner alone cannot be the sole proprietor of making everything happen. I think the member would recognize that the spirit of co-operation is more important in coming to a unanimous direction and decision on any type of growth and to have it spearheaded or be the sole proprietor of ownership of any type of initiative that is affecting all of the city of Winnipeg is something that I do not believe this department or this government would take party to. So I believe that there has to be a tripartite understanding of what the initiatives are, and it is something that as mentioned will be brought forward, but again there has to be a willingness by all parties to co-operate or things cannot happen.
Ms. Barrett: I am not disagreeing with the minister in that regard at all. I am just saying that the spirit of co-operation is all very well and we do need partnership and consensus, but that does not preclude one of the partners from taking a facilitative role, if you will--if you are not comfortable with the leadership role then a facilitative role--to try and find out from the other two partners what the problems are.
There may be underlying concerns with how the study has been formulated to this point. There may be issues that the minister or his department are not aware of. I am just suggesting it would be a very good idea, I think, for him to take that kind of leadership, which does not say this is the way it shall be but says, look, we seem to have a problem getting started here. Why are we having a problem? Is this a good idea? If it is, how can we help facilitate your problems, the other two partners, so that we can start working together, and if it comes out that it just cannot work, then let us know that, too. You can take a leadership role without it voiding the spirit of co-operation and consensus. That is my only concern there.
If I may, one other question, business arising, and that is in the last Estimates there were some discussions about housing, trends in housing, and the minister said last year that there is no forecasting mechanism within the Department of Urban Affairs to foretell where the trends are in housing and which way the market dictates. The ending of that discussion was, it is kind of crystal ball gazing, and I guess we are not in that department yet.
I am wondering if there has been any change in the department--now that I gather there is a real spirit of co-operation between the Department of Urban Affairs and the Department of Housing, if there has been any discussion within the department looking at the whole issue of housing, the trends, what is happening, what does it look like ahead, this kind of thing, or is it pretty much still the same thing as it was last year.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member has mentioned the fact that this is the Department of Urban Affairs, but I also am the Minister responsible for Housing, so there is a close relationship between the two, and I guess there is the interpretation of what housing is and what the Department of Housing is for, and I think that she would recognize that the Department of Housing, per se, has a function to provide housing for people of need or for people who are in a position where housing is a requirement. So the definition within the Department of Housing is in regards to providing accommodation and housing for people of need.
Under the banner or wearing the hat as Minister of Urban Affairs, the notion of housing is always of importance because housing will generate economic growth. It generates job growth. It generates the spin-off of all kinds of economic activity regarding housing.
So there is a concern on both ends of the department, whether it is in Urban Affairs or in the Department of Housing. In the city of Winnipeg, as I am sure the member is aware, housing starts last year were very poor. Housing starts in the city of Winnipeg were down. They dropped approximately about 38 percent overall provincially, and the city of Winnipeg was in around the same amount with about a 40 percent decrease in housing activity during 1995.
Despite this, the city of Winnipeg actually achieved an increase of just over one percent in its share of provincial single housing starts from 1994 to '95, so I guess the fact of housing activity is important. In my Department of Housing, I look forward to discussions regarding housing and some of the initiatives that were taken forth at that time. In regard to Urban Affairs, I guess any type of growth in the new market area and the resale market shows that Winnipeg is still a very, very good place to buy and to raise a family, in the fact that the rates are down. Some of the initiatives that are offered not only by this provincial government but federally for home ownership are very attractive right now.
The quality of workmanship in new homes is by far some of the best it has ever been because of the energy efficiencies that the new homebuilders are putting into their market, so it is a good time to buy or invest in homes. It is just a matter of having that type of confidence that people have to make that major purchase, because, as mentioned, buying a home is one of the most major choices that anybody makes nowadays. One of the things that makes that choice easier, I guess, is strong economic activity that this government has initiated because of our job growth and our economic indicators that show Manitoba is one of the best places in Canada to grow and to invest in because of our provincial economy and the strong government that we have brought forth that people are recognizing.
Our Home Renovation Program which was an excellent program that just wound up very recently, where we had a take-up of almost $10 million for the Home Renovation Program--I believe it was $9.6 million that was taken up by the people of Manitoba. The breakdown was approximately 56 percent of the homeowners in Winnipeg took advantage of the grant which was $1,000 for any type of renovations over $5,000 in a home under $100,000 assessment. I should point out that well over half of the homeowners that took advantage of it, their home assessed value was less than $75,000, so it hit the market where we felt it should be hit or should be concentrated.
It also generated over $74-million worth of spin-off activity in home renovations which amounted to I believe just over 1,200 person years of employment for that type of growth, so we have had some very strong initiatives and indicators of what our programs are doing, but home starts are something that I think we would naturally like more happening, but, again, it is an indication of how the market is going. I believe in 1995 there were just over 840 starts for about half of what happened in Manitoba.
* (1610)
Ms. Barrett: I would like to say that I think perhaps part of the problem--and again this is going over into the Housing. I will not belabour the point because there will be time for Housing Estimates, but I think the minister's response shows part of the problem that I see with the whole issue of Housing as it relates to urban development and urban affairs, is that the definition that the minister used for Housing dealt with new houses or houses for purchase, resale, that kind of thing. The issues, it seems to me, are far broader and deeper than just the housing market as reflected in the Winnipeg Real Estate Board. He did not speak at all about the housing stock as it is reflected in the rental market, which is where virtually all of the social housing stock is found or most of the social housing stock, where much of the older housing stock is found, where much of the housing stock is found that is in the core area of the city.
I gather from the minister's response that there has not been an analysis done of, what does the housing stock look like in the city of Winnipeg? What are the implications for urban development of the housing stock, of the fact that because we are having a decline in new housing starts and we are having a precipitous decline in social housing, what are the impacts of that on the whole issue of the urban development? That is not just a Housing issue; that is an Urban Affairs issue. That is an issue that, I believe, has to be looked at by the department. What are we looking at now? What is the fact that we are a graying population in many regards--and I speak of that in a global context not individual context--the fact that our population is, by and large, aging, but there are pockets of groups that have a very young population, many of which live in the inner parts of the city of Winnipeg, huge social and economic concerns there, one of which is housing.
Every study that has ever been done about urban decay or, on the other side, urban growth and development has as a major component the quality and the affordability and the numbers of appropriate housing stocks. It is a far broader issue than simply the houses that are for sale or not for sale or being built or not being built in the city of Winnipeg. I am saying that I think it is essential that the department take a look at that, maybe the Department of Housing. I mean, I am sure the membranes are very semipermeable between Urban Affairs and Housing, but somewhere in the government we need to take a look at what is out there now and what are our forecasts. The Capital Region Strategy book has pages of what is anticipated to be the look of the capital region in the next 15 years. It is a scary little projection, and I think the whole issue of housing and the ramifications that has for urban development for the entire capital region is an essential one. It also gets into other areas that I will get into later, on planning and sprawl and that kind of thing. I think it is unfortunate that the department has not taken on to itself at least the beginning of a look at that forecasting.
Also, if I may question the Home Renovation Program which just concluded, and I am wondering if the minister has any plans to bring that program back either in the same format or in a different format. Clearly, the government feels it was a success, and we on this side of the House feel that it was a modified success. We, as the minister knows, had some concerns with the scope and the range of the program, but, of course, anything that can help improve the housing stock in the city is essential, and I am wondering if the minister plans to reintroduce that program or another program that would be designed to facilitate home renovation.
Mr. Reimer: The member is right. The program did come forth with a lot of very successful stories. In fact, it was nice to receive letters of congratulation and of thank yous from homeowners and people who did renovations in their homes and from people who took advantage of it, complimentary not only of the program, but quite a few of the letters even complicated the work ethic and the people who did the home repairs, complimenting the various small entrepreneurs and business people that did the work, that they really appreciated it.
The Home Renovation Program was a good program. It was well recognized by our government as coming forth with a tremendous amount of benefit. As to whether it would be reintroduced, that is something that would take further consideration within the budgetary process and the parameters of priorities that all departments are faced with as we go into the challenges of the budget in the next couple of years, so decisions as to whether it will come back or not would not be within my parameter to speculate at this time.
I would like to point out something that the member mentioned regarding the housing, because I think it is an important component of not only Urban Affairs but as Housing minister also. One of the things that we introduced last year to the City of Winnipeg, which I feel is something that should be taken advantage of and has not been initiated to any extent yet, was the fact that we were able to give the City of Winnipeg the ability to bring forth tax concessions for the renovations and the improvement of heritage buildings in the downtown area.
I think that this is an excellent vehicle for not only renovations and job growth but also for the revitalization of some of these wonderful heritage buildings that we have here in Winnipeg, and we do have a tremendous legacy and an asset base because of our heritage buildings. By the fact that the City of Winnipeg lobbied to have this amendment brought forth to The City of Winnipeg Act, we worked diligently to put it forth and get it passed last year. To our knowledge, the by-law has not been passed by the City of Winnipeg to date, and I feel this is an excellent opportunity for them to get some of these buildings back into shape, for redevelopment for either commercial or even office space and things like that, because if you have activity in the downtown area, you are going to attract people downtown. It is going to create places where people want to maybe live and work, plus the fact they will be close to the amenities of shopping, and I believe that it represents an excellent opportunity for more development and growth in the downtown area.
I have mentioned this to some of the councillors, that I feel it is an excellent opportunity. I believe the multiplier effect for $1 spent on heritage buildings is $7 of additional revenue that is generated through that building. In essence, what I mean is $1 in tax savings that tax concessions would generate $7 in expenditures, so that the return is almost immediate with renovations of these heritage buildings. So I feel that there is an excellent opportunity for the city to gain an advantage of not only showcasing our heritage buildings but utilizing them by getting activity and possibly even people moving back downtown to be close to work.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to move, if I may, into some of the other current material. On page 18 of the Estimates book under Unconditional Current Programs Grant, I am wondering if the minister can explain what seems to me to be a bit of a contradiction here where there is a reduction in the grant of some $400,000, estimate over estimate. The Expected Results which state that this would provide greater flexibility for the city in resourcing municipal services and will increase the enhancement of the city's capacity to control property tax increases, I do not see how you can have flexibility and enhancement for the city when you have reduced the grant by $400,000. I am wondering if the minister can explain that.
* (1620)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before we continue, is the committee ready to pass the line Executive Support at this time?
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, earlier in the Estimates process, we agreed to do as we did last year, which is discuss the entire Estimates and then pass them at the conclusion of the hearing.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Agreed to then.
Mr. Reimer: The member is pointing out one particular area of monies that go to the City of Winnipeg, and that is the Unconditional Current Programs Grant. Unconditional means that it is within the city's purview to make the decisions as to where the expenditures are. As pointed out earlier, in our overall granting to the City of Winnipeg, we have increased our grant totally by 3.2 percent up to almost $84 million. So I guess when you look at certain sectors of where the money is coming from, one or two may be down, but overall others are up; and when you bring in the whole content of where monies are going to the City of Winnipeg and the amount of monies that they do have to spend showing an increase, it is significant in comparison to a lot of the other municipal governments in Canada that we have done.
I guess it is similar to an analogy of going to Safeway with $20, and where you spend that $20, whether it is in the meat department or the produce department, is the choice of the individual. We are giving to the City of Winnipeg almost $84 million, and this one portion of just over $19.5 million is really within their purview as to where they feel they would like to spend it.
Ms. Barrett: As far as I can tell, and I may be inaccurate, the one area of support to the city that has gone up is the VLT revenue. Yes, Financial Assistance. Yes, it is up, which says it is reflecting the growth in net VLT revenues available for distribution. Could the minister explain the formula or the process whereby the decision was made to increase the VLT revenue grant?
Mr. Reimer: It is based on the revenues that are generated by VLTs in the previous year, and that is 10 percent of that amount. This is why the figure shows an increase, but I should also point out to the member that the provincial-municipal tax-sharing portion that we are also transferring to the city is up almost $2 million also, so it is a very win-win situation for the city of Winnipeg.
They actually budgeted a lot less than what we gave them. We gave them more money than what they actually budgeted for. If you recall, the previous Minister of Urban Affairs and myself, when we were giving letters to the City of Winnipeg, we indicated to them to budget for zero or no increase. It is through the efforts of this government and the economic climates that we are able to readjust the funding to the City of Winnipeg and give them this increase of 3.2 percent, which was highly over what they expected.
Ms. Barrett: According to my reading of the document, and I missed a portion of what the minister said, I am sorry, but it seems to me that the increase in support to the City of Winnipeg comes basically from the VLT revenue, increase in VLT revenues. I would suggest that that does not necessarily bode well for the underlying financial stability and health of the province as a whole.
This is not the purview of the Minister of Urban Affairs, I recognize that. I do believe it is important to note that the one growth area in the Department of Urban Affairs, support to the City of Winnipeg, is in the VLT revenue, and that is not necessarily a positive indicator as to the basic financial, economic or even social health of the province of Manitoba.
I do not think that is necessarily a sterling recommendation or a sterling acknowledgement of the fiscal responsibility of the current government. As I said earlier, this is not the purview of the Minister of Urban Affairs, and I will just leave it at that.
Mr. Reimer: I realize the amount of money that we give to the City of Winnipeg is a huge amount of money. In fact, if you look at the direct and indirect provincial assistance in all departments that goes to the City of Winnipeg, we are looking at well over $228 million that goes to the City of Winnipeg. Under our Urban Affairs portfolio, as mentioned, our contribution was around just almost $84 million. So the City of Winnipeg has a fair access to funding by the provincial government. In fact, if you look at the historic funding for the City of Winnipeg since 1988, we have increased it approximately 4.5 percent per year, and we have increased our funding to almost 50 percent since 1988. I believe it is around 47 percent that we have increased our funding to the City of Winnipeg. So we have historically always been there for the City of Winnipeg even in the fact that when you look at some comparisons to other cities in western Canada, our percentage of grants to the City of Winnipeg is 17.5 percent of their budget, whereas when you compare other cities in western Canada, such as Regina is 7.5 percent, Saskatoon is 8.6 percent, Edmonton is 6.5 percent and Calgary is 6 percent. So our funding to the City of Winnipeg to 17.5 percent is a very, very significant amount of money of our commitment to the City of Winnipeg.
The City of Winnipeg enjoys a very strong financial relationship with the Province of Manitoba, and that is recognized because of the fact that Winnipeg is a--not only its uniqueness of being the population hub, if you want to call it, of Manitoba, but of the commitments that this government has to the city. So we have been there, and historically we have been there, with an increase every year since 1988. So the amount of money, as I say, now we are looking at through various departments, directly and indirectly, of almost $230 million--$228 million. That is an awful lot of money that we give. The tax sharing portion alone in 1995 was a 6.7 percent increase over the previous year. So we are talking about up all the time when we are talking about the City of Winnipeg and its finances from us.
* (1630)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, moving onwards into the Capital Region Sustainable Development Strategy pages on 31 and 32, and I have a fair number of questions actually in this area, and one in particular. There was a recent set of Municipal Board hearings in Selkirk, I believe it was last month, dealing with the proposed draft development plan for the Selkirk and district planning area, which was a whole series of by-law changes, the general effect of which was to increase potentially the supply of housing lots, almost doubling them, I believe, in that corridor between Winnipeg and Selkirk. In December of 1994, a policy and program analyst from the department of municipal affairs sent a memo to Manitoba Rural Development regarding this draft development plan in which it said that the department had reviewed the draft plan, had not identified any concerns, and stated that the plan appears to respect the provincial land use policies and does not conflict with the intent of the draft Capital Region Strategy. I am wondering if the minister can explain that--well, state, No. 1, if that continues to be the position of the Department of Urban Affairs; and No.2, if it does, how that connects with the concerns that were actually raised at the Municipal Board hearings by the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources regarding soil and ground water resources and provincial investments in highway infrastructure. There appears to be some discrepancy between the Department of Urban Affairs and the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources.
Mr. Reimer: I should begin by sort of couching my remarks in the sense of saying that I understand that the development plans are before the board of appeal right now and that it would be premature for me to speculate too far into a discussion as to the development plans that Selkirk put forth. But I should point out that Winnipeg does have the ability and it does have the position to represent itself at these hearings that were pertaining to the--I believe the member is talking about the Selkirk development plans, so that they do have the ability to make representation.
We do not have a policy of participating in the Municipal Board hearings, because the Department of Rural Development is there, the Department of Environment is there, the Department of Natural Resources, and Highways and Transportation is there so that the concerns and the problems that are addressed by those departments are brought forth. We feel that we do not have to appear at this board either, at the Municipal Board.
So the government is represented through the various other departments so we can seek direction or we can seek advice or we can seek their opinions as to what the outcome is on various other areas. In this particular draft that the member is referring to regarding Selkirk, as I say, it is before an appeal process right now, and I am not too familiar with the position of it or where it stands as to its completion.
Ms. Barrett: I find this passing strange. The minister states that his department really does not have to make presentations before the Municipal Board because the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources do that. Then why is the minister's department asked to comment on these development plans if he does not feel the need to respond to them? I assume from his earlier response that he feels that the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources will effectively reflect the concerns of the province. That is ridiculous. Pardon me, Mr. Minister, but that is absolutely ridiculous.
The Department of Urban Affairs has a very specific and quite distinct from the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources, concern about the issues that are before the Municipal Board, or it certainly should have.
So the minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand have one of his staff people say a year and a half ago, we do not have any problems with this, and on the other hand say, it is not our job to make representation to the Municipal Board; we are leaving it in the hands of the Departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources which have, one would hope, overlapping but not identical responsibilities.
If the Department of Urban Affairs was deemed important enough to be asked to comment on the original draft plan, it seems to me it is deemed important enough to make presentation to the Municipal Board. There is no reason why it does not do it when the other two departments do.
* (1640)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before the minister responds, I would ask the honourable member to put her comments through the Chairperson. It does make a little better decorum in the end.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I guess where there may be disagreement between the member and myself is in the area of government involvement in process. One of the things that Urban Affairs has a responsibility for, as the member mentioned, is the City of Winnipeg under The City of Winnipeg Act, but the City of Winnipeg is in the best position to represent itself in matters regarding developments and municipal actions in and around the city. Urban Affairs makes available and will be in contact with the City of Winnipeg to make sure that they are aware of what is happening regarding the zoning and the various developments that are happening.
The City of Winnipeg has an obligation to fend for itself in the sense of making representation and making itself heard. I do not think there should be the assumption that the Province of Manitoba has to be the carrier of all good and intent for everything and anything that the City of Winnipeg has deemed to be important. The City of Winnipeg has a responsibility to represent itself at public hearings. For the minister or this department to take on the responsibility of being the lead on any and everything that pertains to the City of Winnipeg when the elected officials with the City of Winnipeg also have a responsibility to be involved with the well-being of the city is something that is of importance. Rural Development also makes overtures to the City of Winnipeg when there are plans that are coming forward for adaptation.
So the process of consultation is there. The process of being part of the decision making is partially responsible for the City of Winnipeg to make its position known, excuse me, and represent its interests too.
Ms. Barrett: Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister, and I apologize for having neglected to follow process in this regard. The minister, in his opening statements, and I will have to paraphrase because I do not have them in Hansard yet, but I wrote down that the minister stated in his opening statements that the Department of Urban Affairs must undertake a proactive role in the sustainability of the capital city.
Now the minister's comments in response to my concerns about the lack of participation in the Municipal Board hearings over the Selkirk district draft plan. He states that the province is not responsible for what the city does, that the city must handle its own issues and concerns. Nobody is suggesting that the city does not have to participate effectively on its behalf as well. But the minister has stated that the Department of Urban Affairs has a proactive role to play in the sustainability of the city of Winnipeg. It would seem to me, under that role, it would be incumbent upon the Department of Urban Affairs to make presentation to the Municipal Board on an issue that has very clear implications for the City of Winnipeg.
I am not putting on the record a position either in opposition to, or in favour of, the Selkirk district plan amendments. I am talking about the process here where two departments of the provincial government undertook to do a detailed analysis of this development plan, and have spoken out on the concerns they have regarding it. The Department of Urban Affairs did undertake an analysis of some sort of this proposed amendment because there is a memo stating in December of 1994 that they did not have any problems with it.
So, again, Mr. Chair, it appears that the minister is trying to say two different things. On the one hand, he is saying that the city has to take responsibility, that the government does not have any responsibility for the city of Winnipeg in this regard. If that is carried through, then I would assume that the Department of Urban Affairs would not have made a presentation to the Department of Rural Development on the draft plan in December of 1994. So I would again ask the minister if he stands by the memo that was sent to the Department of Rural Development, December 9, 1994, stating that the Department of Urban Affairs has no problem with the Selkirk and district planning area draft development plan.
Mr. Reimer: Firstly, regarding the proactive role, as mentioned in the speaking notes, the proactive role was to support sustainable development of our capital region. Also, in regard to what the member is referring to--the member is referring to a draft that was brought forth for review at that time--it was not the final report that was brought for consideration. The fact that it is under appeal right now, I feel that to comment on it is really hypothetical in a sense, because we really do not know the nature and the stature of which way the appeal is going to develop.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, the draft development plan is under appeal, but that did not stop the departments of Rural Development and Natural Resources from making quite detailed presentations to the Municipal Board. I am not talking now about the minister making a statement now in the House about that plan. I am talking about what happened and what did not happen in dealing with the Selkirk development plan. I would like to ask the minister if the Department of Urban Affairs has been asked, since December of 1994, to comment further on the Selkirk division and district development plan amendment?
Mr. Reimer: As mentioned, the draft the member is referring to, or the document that was a draft, it was circulated. It was again circulated and brought forward through the Department of Rural Development in review and consideration at that time. Again, with our input in the sense of being aware of it, we did not feel that there was a need to add to the report. We agreed with the position that was brought forth by Rural Development in addressing some of the areas of concern that we may have had, so there was no reason for a separate input in the Urban Affairs department.
It should be pointed out, too, that there seems to be a presumption by the member that the Province of Manitoba should be acting on behalf of the City of Winnipeg in matters that come forth to the city. If the city does not come and make representations and make overtures to meetings or planning committees or to district planning that is happening in and around the area, the presumption that the province should take the lead is something that I find a bit distressing in the sense that if the city does not have the concern or does not indicate the concern by making representations at the meetings or the hearings. For some reason, the member feels that the Department of Urban Affairs should be picking up something that the City of Winnipeg is not placing any type of immediacy on.
* (1650)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I am not for a moment suggesting that the province should act in loco parentis with the City of Winnipeg, and I never have made that suggestion. However, the minister is in charge of the department that deals not simply with the City of Winnipeg, but he is a major player in the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, and he also is a major player in the Capital Region Sustainable Development Strategy.
This is not just an issue for the city of Winnipeg as defined on the map. This is an issue that reflects--and this is a discussion that the minister and I had last year as well. Where does the responsibility, what kind of leadership role does the Department of Urban Affairs have in dealing with the issues that face not only the City of Winnipeg but the capital region, and the minister again says, in effect, very little. We do not have a leadership role to take.
The issue here is not what the city does or does not do. The issue here is, what is the responsibility of the Department of Urban Affairs in making sure that the issues that affect the entire capital region and, by extension, the entire province are raised. There is nothing to have prevented the city from making presentation to the Municipal Board, and the city could have walked in the day of the Municipal Board hearings and made a presentation.
The minister is saying that because the city did not do it, the department should not take over that responsibility--is not accurate, I would suggest, because the timing of those hearings was such that the city could very well have made presentation that the Department of Urban Affairs would not know about ahead of time. So for the minister to say that because the city abrogated their responsibility the department was not going to take over is not, I would say, arguing the issue in its fairest context.
To the specific response that I believe the minister made, what I think the minister said is that the Department of Rural Development and the Department of Natural Resources spoke with the Department of Urban Affairs, shared their concerns, the Department of Urban Affairs then subscribed to those concerns that were expressed at the Municipal Board by those other two departments so that the Department of Urban Affairs felt it was not necessary to go along and make a separate presentation at the recent Municipal Board hearings. Is that an accurate summary of what the minister said?
Mr. Reimer: Not that I would want to feel that the member for Wellington totally has all the facts straight, but more or less what she has outlined in broad parameters, in broad guidelines is more or less what we were talking about, yes.
Ms. Barrett: Not to belabour the point anymore, but is there a substantive area in which I have misrepresented, unwittingly of course, what the minister did say in his earlier response?
Mr. Reimer: I would have to peruse Hansard to find out exactly what the member for Wellington said before I would commit myself to whether she is saying it right or correctly. But I will point out that the Capital Region Strategy has proven to be a very successful model in the sense that it is a unique situation because of the uniqueness of Winnipeg in Manitoba, and the Capital Region Strategy, I am very optimistic that there is a vehicle of change and co-operation that we can build upon with the Capital Region Strategy, and the fact that it is one of the first times that a lot of these municipalities and reeves and councillors have gotten together to talk about common problems makes it in essence something that we should be very optimistic about, that there is a sense of co-operation and co-ordination between the municipalities and the mayor and the reeves, that we can look for positive changes.
As the Minister of Urban Affairs, acting as a facilitator with this program, I look forward to some very positive initiatives coming forth because of the co-operation that I have experienced so far with it. I should point out, the capital region, my co-chairperson with that is the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), so there is a close co-ordination and a co-operation between our two departments in respect to the departments and the various municipalities in this capital region, so I feel fairly optimistic that the Capital Region Strategy is a very, very beneficial program to build upon.
Ms. Barrett: That takes me right into the next area that I would like to talk about, which is the Capital Region Strategy. I note that on page 32 of the Estimates book there is nothing itemized as far as expenditure for the Development Strategy, and the note says that is because the strategy was completed in 1995-96.
I would like to ask the minister how the strategy is going to be implemented. Who is going to be responsible for the implementation of this quite extensive strategy?
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member is correct in looking at, in particular, page 32, where there was an expenditure in '95-96 of $30,000, and there is zero for this year. That is mainly because of the strategy itself and the workmanship of it, and the actual report itself was part of that expenditure there.
It is an ongoing commitment by government and this department to still act as the facilitator regarding the Capital Region Strategy. The support staff and the monies, I believe, that the member is referring to may not be identified, but through our support staff and our operational staff within the Department of Urban Affairs, it will still be facilitated in trying to get the implementation of the strategy going, yes.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, yes, I understand that. I am just wondering, seeing as how there is, as far as I can tell, no additional staffing identified in the departments anywhere, and clearly there has been a reduction in the capital region development strategy because the report is prepared, who will be acting as facilitator to implement the strategy which, as was quoted in the Free Press on May 11, under the new policy all future provincial district and municipal development plans and policies are to be co-ordinated to ensure they are compatible with adjoining areas.
A very laudable aim. I would like to know who is going to implement that goal.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I guess this is an indication of a very efficient department. You know, the workmanship, and the people that are working in the department take on extra loads. There is hardly a ripple in their performance because of the workload that we can give them. But there is an individual that has more or less been assigned, if you want to call it, to work with Capital Region Strategy, a Mr. Chris Leach, and his function will still be primarily, along with his other duties in the department, with the Capital Region Strategy. The work within the department will be carried out, co-ordinated, as I say, through our administrative staff. There is no need to hire additional staff for it. We have been able to implement the initial study and the report stages and the consultation stages without hiring any additional staff, and now that we have the strategy in its formative stage, there is no need to have extra staff. If there is need for additional studies or something that is of an important nature, it does not preclude that we cannot hire an outside consultant from our appropriation. So there is the availability to make that type of decision if and when that comes about, but at this time we feel that with the staff and the availability of the direction we can handle it within.
* (1700)
Ms. Barrett: I am not going to take anything away from any of the staff of Urban Affairs, and I want to make sure that my comments are not seen in that light. But it does seem to me that with a strategy that has, and I have not counted them all, but literally hundreds of policy statements and implementation goals and objectives and five levels that are responsible for or have an input into the implementation of this, this is a very complicated, complex strategy. I do not think it is fair to the strategy nor to the department staff to assume that one individual, or even the staffing that is currently available in the department, to be able to effectively implement or facilitate even--if we do not want to get too strong in these words here--but the facilitation of a document of this nature is an enormous undertaking. I would suggest to the minister that to assume that current staffing can implement this with any degree of efficiency and effectiveness is being unrealistic at the very least, and it leads one to think that perhaps the importance of this document is not going to be given the support that it needs.
I mean, I have some quibbles with some of the stuff in here, and I will ask some specific questions, but an enormous amount of work has gone into this. If we actually did use this as a tool to implement a Capital Region Strategy, we would be, I dare say, in the vanguard in North America if not the entire developed world, that without additional resources to implement this or facilitate it or co-operate with the groups that need to do the implementation, this is going to be yet another study that has promise but not actualization.
Mr. Reimer: The member mentioned one very, very important item there, and that is the idea of partnerships. I believe that this is an excellent example of where there are partnerships involved, and it is not only the partnership with Urban Affairs and the City of Winnipeg but also the partnership that is involved with the various municipalities, the reeves and the mayors in the capital region area.
There are also the partnerships involved that the member should be aware of in regard to other departments within government. An example of one of the initiatives that has been taken on just recently is an initiative that was brought forth for a study on the landfill sites in and around the city of Winnipeg in the capital region study, and this has been funded and directed through the Department of the Environment.
We, when I say we, I mean the Department of Urban Affairs, act as a facilitator to initiate this type of study, and I believe that there will be other areas where there will be this partnership between other departments, not only with the City of Winnipeg but also the various departments within the government of Manitoba and also within the municipalities themselves because they, too, see the benefit of working together and co-ordinating some of their studies for a cost savings because of the duplication of events or things that they are taking on, when these things can be done in a co-ordinated effort between the various municipalities.
So it is a partnershp and a utilization of resources with the fact that Urban Affairs will be acting as a facilitator, so that there is the availability of not only staff in the Department of Urban Affairs, but staff in Environment, maybe staff in I, T and T if there is a study to be initiated through them. It all becomes part of a consultation process for the betterment of the Capital Region Strategy.
So the best way to look at it is to look at it in the fact that we will act in any way to try to facilitate what is good for the region and try to bring forth some sort of good suggestions for it.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I will not belabour this issue because we discussed this in last year's Estimates, and I think that we have a philosophical disagreement on this whole issue. So, while it would be interesting to carry it on, I think that perhaps I will move on to some specific questions, if I may.
I went through the Workbook on the Capital Region Strategy and compared it to Applying Manitoba's Capital Region Policy. I have a few questions, if I may, specific things that were taken out or added from the draft to the final one. I do not know if you have both documents here. If you do not, I can perhaps just give my questions and then you can respond to me. I know it is a little complicated to do this, but some of these things, I think, are interesting. On page 15 in the Workbook under The Vision, sort of the introduction, it talks about the presence of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. That phrase is missing from the final document, and the final document says: Our efforts to make sustainable development part of our everyday lives will have further added to our reputation. That is the same as in the original, but there is no reference to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and I am wondering the reason for that.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairman, I guess in doing the final draft there was a fair amount of input, and good input, from various sectors of consultation. The International Institute of Sustainable Development was mentioned in the original draft that the member is referring to. I guess the opinion in doing the final document that we have before us here, Applying Manitoba's Capital Region Policy, it was thought that to identify or to single out maybe one of the contributors and not have others that were also of very valuable input, and not have them part of it--it was felt that to do it properly maybe we should not be referring to the one and not having the others that were involved for their contribution. So it was a matter of just having it worded the way it is now in the Applying book instead of referring to the individuals.
* (1710)
Ms. Barrett: I can understand that. It is similar to when you are thanking someone in a speech. You do not want to ignore one person, so it is better either to be all encompassing or not. I understand that, but the implication when you leave out that institute, or say, such as, among others. As it reads now, it talks only about our efforts, and I am assuming that that refers more to government than to external agencies. It is not a huge issue but I think that it is, and I will not belabour it. There is one other one, actually on both of those two same pages and it perhaps may be the same thing. In the draft you talk about our Buy Manitoba promotion will have kept more dollars, jobs and people in our province, region and communities. In the final it says our policies and does not refer to our Buy Manitoba promotion.
Again, not to just to use one program, but this appears to be by eliminating the external kinds of programs, it appears--I hesitate to say this but just a tad self-serving.
Mr. Reimer: I guess the definitions are what words we are referring to but I think when we talk about our Manitoba, “our Manitoba” refers to not only our government but our Manitoba as all members of Manitoba, whether they are members that sit in opposition or people that sit up in various sectors of government, or, this is our province and pertains to the betterment of our total province. So I would interpret “our” meaning our citizens of Manitoba, which includes the members of the opposition and the member for Wellington. It is a very broad statement when we say our policies. I would include her in our policies, too.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt on this one. If I may proceed--[interjection] If I may ask leave, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would like to ask two specific questions, and I am prepared to let the member for Inkster do that if it is the will of the committee.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Is it the will of the committee to allow the member for Inkster to ask some of the questions at this time? [agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the member for Wellington allowing me to ask a couple of questions. Actually, it will just be one question. I was talking to an individual. It is rather unique and it is relating to property tax, so hopefully the minister should be able to give me a direct response regarding it. If not, maybe he can give me a bit more detailed response, sometime tomorrow morning would be more than adequate.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
A specific example. I have a constituent who has a condominium. She owns the condo, yet she is a live-in caregiver. That means that her primary residence has to be with her employer. So when she is asked where is her primary residence, she says, well, it is with my employer. But her condominium that she owns and bought is used for--it is extended family. It is not like brothers and sisters, extended family, she does not charge them any rent. The question is what classification and would that actually put this type of an individual in--normally one would think it would just be--it would not be the normal classification of Residential 3, which includes owners of condominiums, yet she would argue that she is an owner, she just has to, by law, because she is a live-in caregiver, live, or say her primary residence is over here when, in fact, it is over at her employer's, a case that has an impact on the amount of property tax that she has to pay, obviously, at the condo. I am wondering if the minister can just comment on that and if he does not have the real details or would like to get more information from me specifically on this particular case I would be more than happy to provide it.
* (1720)
Mr. Reimer: The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) poses an interesting question regarding the classification of taxes and whether it is owner occupied or separate classes for rental. I could not speculate through our department as to the actual, you know, problem that is faced by this constituent of his, but I can take his problem and try to get the proper answers or get some direction for him. Maybe what we can do is once we have a chance to peruse Hansard to get exactly or if the member can meet with me individually after, I will certainly try to get him on the right track or give him the right department or try to get answers for him.
Ms. Barrett: Moving on to page 13 of the applying book, second column, it talks about pay as you go, and this is I think what was part of the press release dealing with the whole document. I just would like to ask the minister what the services are that the second sentence refers to when it says, the full costs of developing, operating and maintaining services will be apportioned among the beneficiaries. So I would like to know what services those are and who the beneficiaries are.
Mr. Reimer: I guess what the referral in that line is regarding the development and the cost, for the people who are going to benefit during any type of subdivision in an area, they are going to be responsible for the bringing in of the services such as water or for sewage or for roads, the paving of roads and things like that, that is more or less what the referral is, that the people who are going to benefit from it will be the people who are going to have to pay for those types of amenities.
Ms. Barrett: The minister said the kinds of services were such as water and sewer and roads, and my understanding is that that is pretty much the standard definition of services that are paid for by the beneficiaries.
Is the department looking at an expansion of the definition of what these services are that are paid for by the beneficiaries, such as schools, fire-halls, community centres, those amenities that my understanding currently do not constitute services as defined.
Mr. Reimer: I guess with any type of development, it is the development itself that will outline the demands that they are looking for. We are not in a position to outline what the benefits are or what the services should or should not be. If communities grow to a point where they feel that they should have schools or they should have community centres or other type of development, I believe that that is within the purview of what will transpire on a natural basis.
We will not be sort of outlining in a shopping list or a guideline as to what the services would be appropriate or what should be expected, no.
Ms. Barrett: So given an expansion of housing such as Lindenwoods, for example, or River Park South or any one of a number of subdivisions that have come on stream in the last few years, currently my understanding is that the water and sewer and some road construction and maybe lighting are part of what the developer and the beneficiaries are required to pay. It is built into the cost of the house because it is seen as the responsibility of those people who are the beneficiaries.
A development the size of Lindenwoods is obviously going to require schools and probably fire services. Those are currently paid for by the property taxpayers of the entire city, not by the direct beneficiaries of the development, and my question is, is there any plan to look at expanding the items that would be put into those costs of development for the beneficiaries?
Mr. Reimer: I guess there are two areas of jurisdiction, or not jurisdiction, but of concern, that we are talking about. In the city of Winnipeg itself, the demands that are placed upon various subdivisions or housing developments in the city of Winnipeg usually grow to a point where decisions are made as to what should or should not happen in that particular area. That is under the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg and their zoning by-laws and their local councillors and the residents themselves as to what they are looking for and the abilities of what they expect out of their community, so the decisions are made that way, where there is no input or direction by Urban Affairs as to what the various communities, as mentioned, like Lindenwoods or River Park South and what way they develop and which direction they take.
It is within the purview of the City of Winnipeg and the councillors that are aware of the problems as to when it comes to a point that a school is warranted or when it comes to a point where a community centre is warranted and what the residents in the area are looking for for their comfort and their conveniences. So the city of Winnipeg and their residents there make that type of decision as pointed out.
In the rural area, as pointed out, which this urban Capital Region Strategy is pertaining to is the services and development in there. That is something that will come about again because of the individual circumstances for that particular type of development. If there is a development in a certain area of one of the surrounding municipalities and the people feel that they have come to that point also where schools are warranted or they want better street lighting or roads, that is something they recognize will have to come about through their taxation base or their special levy base or a charge that they feel they would like to have for the betterment of their community. These are some of the things that will come about through natural growth and attrition in the area of where the services come about.
It is hard to speculate as to how it will transpire or where it will transpire. It is just that in all likelihood it will be the people in the areas that will make these decisions as to what they feel is necessary because of their growth potential and what they find is necessary to make things happen.
Ms. Barrett: I realize our time today is short. I would just like to ask the minister, for the next time we meet, if he could explain why on page 14 of the new policy, an action that was in the original draft which said, develop a long-term, comprehensive sustainable development plan for the capital region is missing.
It may be somewhere else and I just did not see it but, if the minister could investigate that for next time, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this committee is recessed until 9 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday) as previously agreed.